Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, Seattle, WA, along with Arizona, Illinois and Oregon sued, signing a restraining order that blocks Mr. Trump’s executive order for 14 days, renewable upon expiration.

Brett Shumate, federal government attorney, argued that undocumented immigrants “remain subject to a foreign power” and “have no allegiance to the United States.” Nor, would their American-born children.

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, delivering the administration its first legal defeat in its effort to overhaul immigration laws and reverse longstanding constitutional precedent.

The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day of his second term, declares that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants after February 19, 2025, would no longer be treated as citizens. The order extends to children born to mothers who are in the country legally but temporarily, such as tourists, international students, or temporary workers, if the father is a noncitizen.

Judge John Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued the ruling, stating unequivocally, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?” The judge, who has served on the bench for over four decades, said he could not see how the order aligns with the Constitution.

Legal Challenges and the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” For over a century, courts have interpreted this clause to apply to virtually all children born in the U.S., with limited exceptions: children of foreign diplomats, children born to noncitizens on U.S. soil occupied by an invading army, and for a time, children born to Native Americans on reservations.

Twenty-two states, along with advocacy groups and expectant mothers, filed six lawsuits challenging the executive order, arguing it violated the Constitution. The plaintiffs warned that the order would deny citizenship rights and benefits to more than 150,000 children born annually, leaving many stateless and causing states to lose federal funding for various assistance programs.

Former Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger’s 1995 testimony to Congress was also cited in the lawsuits. Dellinger had asserted that any law limiting birthright citizenship would be “unconstitutional on its face” and even a constitutional amendment would contradict “the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

Nick Brown, attorney general of Washington State, called the order “un-American” but noted that the legal battle is far from over. “We will be back in court,” Brown said, “as will many other people across the country.”

Arguments From the Trump Administration

Brett Shumate, a lawyer for the federal government, argued that the order is “absolutely” constitutional, claiming that undocumented immigrants “remain subject to a foreign power” and therefore do not owe allegiance to the U.S. According to Shumate, their children would also not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Judge Coughenour, however, questioned this interpretation, asking whether children of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes would be subject to U.S. law. Shumate conceded they would be “subject to the jurisdiction with respect to the laws of this country, but not with respect to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.”

Coughenour dismissed this argument, emphasizing that longstanding precedent does not support such limitations on birthright citizenship.

The Impact on Expectant Mothers and States

The lawsuits contend that the executive order creates immediate and significant challenges. States argue that the order requires them to modify systems used to determine eligibility for federal-backed programs, causing logistical and financial burdens. Expectant mothers, meanwhile, are left uncertain about the legal status of their children.

Joseph W. Mead, an attorney representing pregnant mothers in a separate Maryland case, stated, “Mothers today now have to fear that their children will not be given the U.S. citizenship that they’re entitled to.”

Nationwide Legal Battles

The ruling in Washington is just the beginning of what promises to be a prolonged legal battle. Four additional lawsuits filed by activist groups and pregnant mothers are being heard in federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and California. In Massachusetts, 18 states and two cities are challenging the order, arguing it violates both constitutional rights and federal law.

Trump’s Response and the Road Ahead

President Trump responded to the ruling with defiance, telling reporters, “Obviously we’ll appeal it.” The Justice Department also vowed to “vigorously defend” the executive order, stating it reflects the will of “the American people, who are desperate to see our nation’s laws enforced.”

On social media, Trump wrote, “My decision on birthright citizenship will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation.” He also indicated that he discussed immigration issues with Chinese President Xi Jinping, expressing hope for broader solutions.

As the legal battles continue, the outcome will likely shape immigration policy and constitutional interpretation for years to come. For now, the temporary block preserves the status quo, ensuring citizenship rights for children born on U.S. soil remain unchanged.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:

“PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

EXECUTIVE ORDER

JANUARY 20^th, 2025”

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

Sec. 3.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b)  The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b)  “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 20, 2025.

SOURCES:

Donald Trump,
John C. Coughenour,
Brett Shumate,
Walter Dellinge,
Nick Brown,
Joseph W. Mead,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/